We believe judges should agree to pay more for their benefits, but the law
allows them to be heard in the courts.

A constitutional amendment is a scalpel to be used with precision, and only when surgery is a last resort. But too often, politicians think of it as a hammer, and suddenly, political and social issues they desperately want to fix become nails.

Tinkering with constitutions is serious business. They are sacred charters and they’re not to be messed with because a frustrated governor — used to getting his way — is thwarted on a relatively minor issue and throws a temper tantrum.

Gov. Chris Christie has proposed a constitutional amendment in his fight with judges over their contributions toward pension and health benefits. Christie wants them to pay more, and now that he has lost round one in Superior Court, the battle is headed for the state Supreme Court.

By floating the idea of a constitutional amendment, the governor — hammer in hand — is telling justices: "Go ahead, rule however you want. If I don’t like it, I’ll change the constitution, then come gunning for you." That’s scary stuff.

The state constitution protects judges’ salaries for a good reason — so a vindictive politician, upset at a ruling, can’t whack their pay. With his spit-flying rants, Christie has proven the other side’s argument: Judges must be protected from retaliation. They can’t dispense justice with a gun to their head. Or the governor’s hand on their wallets.

We believe judges should agree to pay more for their benefits, but the law allows them to be heard in the courts. The governor insists judges shouldn’t be able to rule on their own pay and benefits, but Christie has vetoed the millionaires tax. Surely, he and his wife one day will benefit from that. Was his veto, then, inappropriate?

Christie is demanding every legislator and candidate declare where they stand on the issue. He should wait for the state Supreme Court to rule instead of asking for a misguided loyalty oath.

This pay squabble doesn’t warrant a change in the constitution. The protection is needed, the dollar amount at stake is relatively small and the savings are a decade away.

Besides, the Legislature could pass a law that bumps up judges’ contributions with the start of a new judicial term. The constitution protects their pay only for "the term of appointment."